pedro neves, stephen champion core self-evaluations and...

Pedro Neves, Stephen Champion

Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance: the role of resources and self-regulation Article (Accepted version) (Refereed)

Original citation: Neves, Pedro and Champion, Stephen (2015) Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance: the role of resources and self-regulation. European Management Journal. ISSN 0263-2373 DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2015.06.001 © 2015 Elsevier Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62802/ Available in LSE Research Online: July 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02632373

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.06.001

http://www.elsevier.com/

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62802/

CSE, RESOURCES AND DEVIANCE 1

Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance:

The role of resources and self-regulation

Pedro Neves, Nova School of Business and Economics and

Stephen Champion, London School of Economics

Author note

Pedro Neves, Nova School of Business and Economics and Stephen Champion, London

School of Economics

This research was supported by a grant from the Portuguese National Science Foundation

(PTDC/PSI-PSO/111606/2009). Pedro Neves would also like to acknowledge the support

received from Nova Forum.

Corresponding author: Pedro Neves, Nova School of Business and Economics, Campus

de Campolide, 1099-032, Lisbon, Portugal. e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

In this study, we examine the relationship between employees’ core self-evaluations (CSE) and

workplace deviance. Further, taking a person-environment perspective, we utilize a conservation

of resources framework (Hobfoll, 1989), proposing that the degree to which employees are able

to attain resources, versus the extent to which resources are drained from the individual, acts as a

mediating mechanism between CSE and deviance. Specifically, we propose that employees’

CSE is related to deviance through its association with a decrease in the depletion of resources

(utilized as emotional exhaustion) and an increase in the ability to garner external resources by

fostering social exchange relationships within the workplace (utilized as trust in the supervisor).

Data were collected from 518 employee-supervisor dyads across 35 different organizations.

Results revealed that trust in the supervisor fully mediated the relationship between CSE and

deviance directed both at other individuals and the organization, whilst emotional exhaustion

was a significant mediator for the relationship between CSE and interpersonal deviance.

Implications for theory and practice are also discussed.


Core self-evaluations and workplace deviance:

The role of resources and self-regulation

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a significant degree of interest regarding workplace

deviance (Bennett and Robinson, 2000, 2003; Robinson and Bennett, 1995, 1997 – for a review

see Berry, Ones, and Sackett, 2007), which has been defined as “voluntary behavior of

organizational members that violates significant organizational norms, and in so doing, threatens

the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995: 556).

Further, some scholars have looked to understand why employees engage in such deviant

behaviors; however, there appears to be a lack of consensus as to what promotes, and

subsequently motivates, workplace deviance. For example, some scholars have argued that the

cause of deviant behavior can primarily be explained through situational factors; suggesting

deviance is a reaction to negative situations, such as injustice (e.g. Skarlicki and Folger, 1997;

Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluk, 1999), the failure of others to fulfill obligations (e.g. Bordia,

Restubog, and Tang, 2008), or abusive supervision (e.g. Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007, Tepper,

2000, 2007; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, and Marrs, 2009). Other scholars have focused on the

influence of individual factors, such as the personality traits of narcissism (e.g. Judge, LePine,

and Rich, 2006) and conscientiousness (e.g. Mount, Ilies, and E. Johnson, 2006); which suggests

that individuals have different predispositions regarding their interpretations of, and interactions

with, the wider social context. Surprisingly, considering the size of the extant literature, there

have been relatively fewer studies that have considered both individual factors, and situational

influences, with regard to the antecedents of workplace deviance (some notable exceptions

include: Aquino, Lewis, and Bradfield, 1999; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, and Barrick, 2004;


Ferris, Brown, Lian, and Keeping, 2009; Greenberg and Barling, 1999; Tepper, Duffy and Shaw,

2001).

Considering why employees might be motivated to engage in deviant behavior,

traditionally most scholars have argued (and/or assumed) that such behavior seeks to address a

perceived injustice, or imbalance, with the aim of achieving some sort of fairness, or equity (e.g.

Bordia et al., 2008; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). This motivation is

seen to be grounded in negative reciprocity and quid pro quo norms (Gouldner, 1960).

Conversely, more recently it has been suggested that as opposed to a ‘motivation’ (per se),

workplace deviance may be brought about through an employee’s inability to self-control (or

self-regulate) their behavior (Thau, Aquino, and Poortvliet, 2007; Thau and Mitchell, 2010).

Self-regulation theory (Baumeister, Vohs and Tice, 2007; Baumeister, 1998) suggests that the

work environment requires employees to constantly regulate their behavior in order to facilitate

social functioning (Vohs and Ciarocco, 2004). As such, self-regulation requires effort

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice, 1998; Muraven and Baumeister, 2000); when

individuals no longer have the self-resources to control their behavior, they may be subject to

impulsive urges, desires and emotions (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, and Chatzisarantis, 2010), which

may be anti-social in nature. Despite promising evidence concerning the relationship between

self-regulation impairment and workplace deviance (Thau and Mitchell, 2010), this line of

research remains in its infancy, and specifically, is yet to consider the influence of individual

factors, such as traits. Overall, we argue that there is merit in exploring self-regulatory

impairment, as well as the influence of individual vis-à-vis situational factors, in order to

advance our understanding of why employees engage in deviant behavior.


Intuitively, the central protagonist of workplace deviance is the employee who conducts

such behavior; therefore, in order to understand why employees engage in deviant behavior,

understanding an individual’s personality may be key to explaining behavioral outcomes. One of

the most influential paradigms in predicting employee behavior has been the core self-

evaluations (CSE) construct (Judge and Bono, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoressen, 2003;

Judge, Locke, and Durham, 1997; Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger, 1998), which concerns the

fundamental assessment individuals make regarding their worth, competence, and capabilities

(Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke, 2005). Initially conceptualized as a predictor of job satisfaction

(Judge et al., 1997), CSE has also shown positive relationships with job performance (Ferris et

al., 2011; Grant and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Judge and Bono, 2001), motivation (Erez and Judge,

2001), and engagement (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010). As such, whilst CSE is in essence

an evaluation of the self, evidence suggests it may also influence how an individual interacts

within the wider social context. However, despite this, there have been few attempts to examine

the relationship between CSE and negative behavioral outcomes (for an exception see: Best,

Stapleton, and Downey, 2005).

In order to address this gap, the current study examines whether CSE contributes to

employees’ engagement in deviant behavior. Fundamentally, CSE is an evaluation of self-worth,

and as such, this suggests that heightened CSE should gravitate individuals away from engaging

in ‘un-worthy’ (i.e. deviant) behaviors. This reasoning may be supported by evidence that

individuals with heightened CSE are more likely to engage in pro-social attitudes and behaviors

(e.g. Erez and Judge, 2001; Grant and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Judge and Bono, 2001; Rich et al.,

2010). As such, we argue that greater or lower levels of CSE will result in individuals who are

less or more likely to engage in deviant behavior. Combining this argument with self-regulation


theory, we suggest that employees with heightened CSE are likely to therefore possess and attain

more resources relevant for their work, which in turn results in the greater ability to self-control

behavior; thus, reducing deviant behavior. Our proposition is derived from previous research that

has consistently shown that individuals with high CSE are better equipped to deal with

workplace stressors such as incivility or increased workload, while those with low CSE may

perceive those stressors as overwhelming, thus reducing their ability to overcome them (Beattie

& Griffin, 2014; van Doorn & Hulsheger, 2015). These studies demonstrate that individuals

present negative reactions to these stressors, such as disengagement or depression, only when

they lack the personal resources to deal with them, as depicted by low CSE.

However, self-regulation theory is predominantly based on the assumption that an

individual’s self-control is subject to stimulus experienced in the broader situational

environment. Applying this to the work context, certain scholars have argued that the work

environment has an inherently draining effect on employees, brought about through work

demands (Crawford, Lepine, and Rich, 2010; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli,

2001; Wilk and Moynihan, 2005), having to deal with uncertainty (Ashford and Cummings,

1985; Lind and van den Bos, 2002; Tangirala and Alge, 2006; Thau et al., 2009) and the need to

self-regulate behavior (Baumeister, 1998; Muraven and Baumeister, 2000). As such, this

suggests that employees may experience constant pressure to maintain the necessary energy, or

resources, needed to self-control base instincts.

Given this, we argue that as well as possessing greater baseline levels of self-resources,

CSE theory is implicit that individuals with heightened CSE are also better equipped to develop,

capitalize on, and maintain, social resources from the environment (i.e. situational). Taking a

person-environment perspective, we utilize a conservation of resources perspective (Hobfoll,


1989; Hobfoll and Freedy, 1993) in order to test this; proposing that the degree to which

employees are able to attain resources from the broader work environment, versus the extent to

which resources are drained from the individual, acts as a mediating mechanism between CSE

and deviance.

By utilizing this perspective, we argue that emotional exhaustion (Cropanzano, Rupp, and

Byrne, 2003; Wright and Cropanzano, 1998) represents a critical depletion in resources, brought

about via the draining effect of the work environment (Grant and Sonnentag, 2010). However,

equally, the work environment may also present opportunities to acquire emotional resources to

counterbalance this draining effect (c.f. Blau, 1964). We argue that trust in the supervisor (e.g.

Dirks, 2000; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002) is a critical external resource, which helps to alleviate the

negative (i.e. draining) effects of the work environment, by reducing uncertainty; thus,

facilitating beliefs that the individual is better able to achieve desired outcomes and minimizing

the occurrence of deviant behaviors (Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). Because trust entails a

willingness to become vulnerable to the actions of another individual (Mayer, Davis &

Schoorman, 1995), it is strongly connected to feelings of psychological safety, characterized by

a belief that the team or organization is safe for risk taking and where individuals are

comfortable being themselves (Edmondson, 1999). Such as reduction in uncertainty is then

reflected in how individuals deal with difficulties, providing them with additional external

resources that enable them, for example, to effectively learn from failure, rather than merely

detect and correct it (Carmeli, 2007). Moreover, the ability of individuals high in CSE to garner

positive relationships with others, namely supervisors, has been demonstrated in the literature

(e.g., Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Sears & Hackett, 2011). This is due to their ability in securing

leader feedback and communicating effectively, which are key pillars in the establishment of


high quality relationships with supervisors, of which trust is the main indicator, and that stem

from their positive view of the self (Sears & Hackett, 2011). Overall, we argue that both trust in

the supervisor and emotional exhaustion are key mechanisms through which an individual’s

(higher versus lower) CSE is associated with deviant behaviors, as a result of their (greater

versus lesser) reserves of resources needed to self-control behavior.

1.1. Core Self-Evaluations

Core self-evaluations is a general, latent personality trait concerning an individual’s

fundamental self-evaluation of their worthiness, capabilities and competence that is based on

traits that are evaluation-focus, fundamental (i.e., source versus surface traits) and broad in scope

(Judge et al., 1997; Judge et al., 2005), and has been described as the “the most useful

personality trait in the realm of human performance” (Judge, van Vianen, and De Pater, 2004: p.

342). This concept builds on Packer’s (1985) suggestion that there are “core evaluations [that]

are basic conclusions, bottom-line evaluations that we all hold subconsciously” (p. 3) and that

shape all other appraisals we make about events, objects and people. Within the CSE construct,

Judge et al. (1997) utilized the self-evaluative traits of self-esteem (i.e. the overall degree a

person believes him/herself to be worthy and of value), generalized self-efficacy (i.e. a person’s

estimate of his/her fundamental ability to cope, perform, and be successful), locus of control (i.e.

the degree to which a person believes they, as opposed to other factors, control outcomes in life),

and (low) neuroticism (i.e. the tendency to have a negative view of the self and the future);

together, these four traits are conceptualized to form the higher order trait of CSE (Judge et al.,

2005). Essentially, Judge et al. (2003) posited that “an individual who scores high on core self-

evaluations is someone who is well adjusted, positive, self-confident, efficacious, and believes in

his or her own agency” (p. 304). Overall, CSE is seen as a positive predictor of life satisfaction,


and likewise, is seen as a negative predictor of strain, stress and depression (Judge, et al., 2005;

Judge, et al., 2003).

Although each of the dimensions of CSE has a rich literature of their own (e,g., Judge &

Bono, 2001), CSE as a higher-order concept has received strong theoretical and empirical

validation (Gardner & Pierce, 2009; Judge et al.,2004). While there is value in examining each of

the facets individually, such stream of research fails to acknowledge the commonality between

these traits, such as positivity of self-description or lower susceptibility to self-relevant social

cues (Judge et al., 2004). The study of CSE as representing the shared variance among the four

traits has garnered strong empirical support, namely by demonstrating that each facet

individually has little incremental validity when controlling for their common core (Judge et al.,

2004). Thus, all four dimensions should be measured and then aggregated into a broad

personality trait (Johnson et al., 2008). When compared to other personality traits such as the Big

Five, there is also evidence suggesting that CSE is relevant in the prediction of workplace

behaviors over and beyond the effect of the Big Five dimensions (Johnson, Kristof-Brown, van

Vianen, DePater & Klein, 2004; Salvaggio, Schneider, Nishii, Mayer, Ramesh & Lyon, 2007).

Taken together, these results support the relevance of studying CSE in the context of work.

Whilst it is inherently an evaluation of the self, CSE may also manifest itself in the

behaviors of individuals, as evidenced by the positive link between CSE and job performance

(e.g. Kacmar, Collins, Harris, and Judge, 2009). Specifically within the context of work, Grant

and Wrzesniewski (2010) noted that “because they feel capable of succeeding and view

themselves as more worthy and in control, employees with high core self-evaluations engage in

more frequent goal-setting, display greater effort and persistence toward achieving their goals,

and capitalize more effectively on their opportunities and resources” (p. 108).


Two mechanisms are implicit within the literature concerning how CSE influences

behavioral outcomes. Firstly, through emotional generalization, where positive self-evaluations

spill over and influence other psychological processes, such as perceptions and attributions

(Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, and Tan, 2012). An example can be found in the consistent

relationship between CSE and positive feelings about one’s work, namely job satisfaction (Judge

& Bono, 2000; Judge et al., 2005). As such, heightened CSE may result in individuals who are

predisposed to interpret, not just themselves, but the wider social environment in a more positive

manner. This in turn may have a positive influence on how the individual engages with the social

environment. Secondly, heightened CSE may initiate a self-fulfilling prophesy, in that in order to

maintain consistency with their CSE, individuals engage in behaviors that substantiate and affirm

their positive self-evaluation. For example, Judge, et al. (2005) utilized self-concordance

(Sheldon and Elliot, 1998, 1999) and self-determination theories (Ryan and Deci, 2000), arguing

that CSE is positively related to the desire to achieve self-relevant goals. Therefore, heightened

CSE may mandate individuals who have positive beliefs about their ability to achieve relevant

future outcomes and states, and thus, they consistently engage in constructive behaviors, in order

to achieve those desired outcomes and states.

In sum, the literature suggests that as a broad trait, CSE influences individuals to engage

in behavior which is consistent with their self-evaluation. As such, heightened CSE relates to

positive behaviors (e.g. increased job performance), whilst the literature is implicit (as there is

still little empirical evidence) that engaging in negative behaviors (e.g. deviance) would run

contrary to heightened CSE.

1. 2 CSE, Resources, and Emotional Exhaustion


To explain the relationship between CSE and employees’ subsequent behaviors, we draw

on theories related to social and psychological resources (c.f. Hobfoll, 2002). For example,

conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll and Freedy, 1993) suggests that

individuals have a finite source of resources at their disposal, helping them cope with stressors

and demands experienced in the work environment (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll and Freedy, 1993;

Lee and Ashforth, 1996). Hobfoll (1989) defined resources, “as those objects, personal

characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means

for attainment of these objects” (p. 516). Whilst the literature suggests that these resources may

be enhanced and/or acquired by experiences in the situational work context (Gorgievski and

Hobfoll, 2008), in turn, experiences at work may also act to deplete these resources (Bakker,

Demerouti, and Euwema, 2005; Demerouti, et al., 2001; Halbesleben, 2006; Hobfoll, 1989).

Indeed, some scholars have argued that the work environment has an inherently draining effect

on employees, in that job demands (such as workload, time pressures, physical and mental

demands, etc.) require effort, which subsequently depletes an individual’s reserve of resources

(e.g. Crawford, et al., 2010; Halbesleben, 2006).

To counteract the draining effect of work, employees may draw upon resources from

either internal (i.e. the self) or through external (i.e. the wider situational environment) sources.

From an internal perspective, an individual’s CSE may be recognized as a fundamental step in

the process through which individuals generate psychological resources necessary to cope with

the inherent demands associated with work (Luria and Torjman, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller,

Judge, and Scott, 2009). Essentially, heightened CSE may foster an increase in an individual’s

inner belief that they have the ability, and control, to overcome work demands and stressors (i.e.

through possessing greater self-efficacy and have a more internal locus of control); and further,


that they are worthy as a person (i.e. greater self-esteem), as well as possessing a positive belief

in themselves and their future (i.e. lower neuroticism). As such, as well as having greater levels

of self-resources, heightened CSE may also act as a self-perpetuating mechanism; enabling

employees to be better able to overcome work demands and stressors, and in turn by doing so,

affirming positive self-evaluations.

Whilst individuals with higher CSE may be better able to attain and maintain resources to

deal with the daily difficulties and challenges, it goes to reason that individuals with lower CSE

are less able to do so, and thus, more likely to experience depleted resources. Our assertion is

supported by empirical evidence that highlights the buffering role of CSE in the process of

coping with workplace stressors. For example, the longitudinal diary study conducted by Beattie

and Griffin (2014) found that increased exposure to incivility decreased work engagement but

only for individuals with low CSE. Similarly, van Doorn & Hulsheger (2015) found that

increased workload and emotional job demands only led to depression for low CSE individuals.

In our study we argue that depleted resources may also manifest itself in a state of

increased emotional exhaustion, which is characterized by a chronic state of depleted physical

and emotional resources (Cropanzano et al, 2003), and is seen as the ‘hallmark’ of burnout

(Grant and Sonnenteg, 2010), having a deleterious effect on an individual’s physical and mental

well-being (Kahill, 1988; Maslach and Leiter, 1997). According to conservation of resources

theory, “emotional exhaustion is most likely to occur when there is an actual resource loss, a

perceived threat of resource loss, a situation in which one's resources are inadequate to meet

work demands, or when the anticipated returns are not obtained on an investment of resources”

(Wright and Cropanzano, 1998: p 487). Therefore, emotional exhaustion represents a depletion

in employees’ resources, and is seen to foster psychological states of cynicism and inefficacy


(Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004; Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter, 2001; Perry, Witt, Penney, and

Atwater, 2010). As such, CSE and emotional exhaustion should be negatively related to each

other, as employees with heightened CSE (characterized by high self-efficacy and self-esteem,

an internal locus of control, and low neuroticism) are better equipped with effective internal

resources to deal with work demands, therefore showing lower instances of psychological and

physiological strain.

Hypothesis 1: CSE is negatively related to emotional exhaustion.

1.3 CSE, Resources, and Trust in the Supervisor

Regarding the external situational environment, individuals can be seen to garner

resources from the social relationships they form at work. For example, exchange theories (e.g.

Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958; March and Simon, 1958) have been instrumental in our

understanding of social dynamics within the workplace (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004;

Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), proposing that the employment relationship can essentially be

seen as an exchange of resources (e.g. Foa and Foa, 1980). Broadly, these resources are either

tangible and economic (e.g. pay, benefits, etc), or intangible and socio-emotional in nature (e.g.

praise, appreciation, status, respect, caring, etc.).

Utilizing a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), a crucial source of resources for the

employee may stem from the relationship the employee forms with their immediate supervisor.

Broadly, the literature suggests that the immediate supervisor is a key figure in influencing

employees’ experience of the work environment (e.g. Liden, Sparrowe, and Wayne, 1997; Perry

et al., 2010; Rosen, Harris and Kacmar, 2011), such that the supervisor plays a critical role in

bestowing conditions that enable the employee to achieve successful work outcomes (Perry et

al., 2010; Rosen et al., 2011), as well as providing treatment that can buffer (i.e. protect)


employees from work related stressors (e.g. Harris and Kacmar, 2005). Of particular note, the

immediate supervisor may play a key role in alleviating the negative (i.e. draining) effect that

uncertainty has on the self (Hogg, 2001). For example, uncertainty management theory (Lind and

Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos and Lind, 2002) suggests that the work context, may be

inherently characterized by uncertainty; in that employees may essentially be unsure as to the

outcomes (be they positive or negative) that they may, or may not, receive and/or achieve. The

literature concerning uncertainty has consistently emphasized its negative impact on individuals,

such that it fosters anxiety regarding the ability to control the immediate environment (Tangirala

and Alge, 2006). Supervisors can clarify goals, define roles, responsibilities, and priorities, as

well as provide the means and structures by which to achieve objectives (Colbert and Witt,

2009). In doing so, Perry et al. (2010) note that supervisors can have a positive effect on

employees’ resources, by limiting uncertainty and ambiguity. Therefore, the relationship the

employee has with the supervisor may be critical for the employee’s ability to experience success

at work. Or in other words, the degree to which an employee experiences success at work, may

(to a lesser or greater extent) be reliant on the relationship they have with their supervisor.

Within the framework of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), interpersonal trust plays a

key role. Thus, within the work context, and due to the role played by direct supervisors, trust in

the supervisor may be a key indicator of the quality of the social exchange between the

supervisor and their subordinates (for a review see: Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). It can be defined as

“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the

expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of

the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995, p. 712).

We argue that with individuals being motivated to both reduce and manage uncertainty (e.g.


Ashford, 1983, 1986; Ashford and Cummings, 1985; Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos

and Lind, 2002), trust in the supervisor may help to address the draining effect of uncertainty on

an individual’s resources. Practically, this may be achieved by examining the situational context

for cues relating to the value the supervisor places on the individual (such that greater value

denotes the other parties likely positive treatment - Lind and van den Bos, 2002; Rosen et al.,

2011; van den Bos and Lind, 2002). As such, we argue that trust in the supervisor is a resource

which helps to provide predictability and assurances regarding future work related events, as

well fostering beliefs that work related outcomes will be positive for the employee.

We argue that individuals with heightened CSE may display (and therefore, benefit from)

greater trust in the supervisor for two reasons. Firstly, heightened CSE has shown positive

relationships with personal trust in others (Gardner & Pierce, 2009), social support (Rey,

Extremera, Pelaez-Fernandez, 2015), and more importantly leader-member exchange (Sears &

Hackett, 2011; LMX – Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997) and perceived supervisor

support (Beattie & Griffin, 2014), which suggests that CSE facilitates the development of

successful interpersonal relationships between the employee and the supervisor. Thus,

supervisors may be more likely to relay social cues of value (i.e. a resource) towards employees

with heightened CSE, which in turn, may enhance trust and thus reduce uncertainty. Secondly,

heightened CSE may predicate more positive perceptions of the wider social environment

(through lower neuroticism and greater self-esteem); in this case heightened CSE may result in

more favorable perceptions and attributions concerning the interpersonal relationship with the

supervisor. Therefore, individuals with heightened CSE may be more predisposed to trust their

supervisor (such that supervisors’ acts are more likely to be deemed trustworthy).

Hypothesis 2: CSE is positively related to trust in the supervisor


1.4 CSE, Self-Regulation Impairment and Deviance

The vast majority of deviance literatures have accounted for workplace deviance through

retaliatory based explanations, influenced by logic derived from negative reciprocity (Gouldner,

1960) and equity (Adams, 1965) theories. However, more recently some scholars have proposed

a new framework, arguing that under certain conditions employees may engage in deviant

behavior primarily due to an inability to control the self (Thau et al., 2007; Thau and Mitchell,

2010). Theory relating to self-regulation (Baumeister, 1998; Muraven and Baumeister, 2000;

Schmeichel and Baumeister, 2004) suggests that individuals have impulsive needs, and/or

impulsive reactions, in relation to certain stimulus. It is through the executive function of the self

that individuals may apply self-control in order to contain these impulses, and thus, manage

individuals’ “basest instincts” (Schmeichel and Baumeister, 2004: p 84) which can be destructive

to the self and others. As such, self-control enables individuals to cognitively self-direct their

behaviors. Further, theory holds that self-control requires cognitive effort (Schmeichel and

Baumeister, 2004), and thus, requires individuals to possess the necessary resources (i.e. energy)

in which to enact self-control. Therefore, due to the fact that workplace norms require employees

to behave in a certain manner (e.g. co-operation with colleagues, adherence to rules and

procedures, courteousness to customers, etc.), employees may need to constantly engage (to

varying degrees) in self-control. This in turn requires, and depletes, an individual’s reserve of

resources (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000), and that with a decrease in these resources the

greater the likelihood of employees engaging in deviant behavior (e.g. Christian and Ellis, 2011;

Wang, Liao, Zhan, and Shi, 2011). Utilizing self-control theory, we argue that the work

environment places pressure on employees, draining resources through job demands, uncertainty

and the need to self-control behavior. For each individual employee, a critical threshold may be


reached when they no longer have the necessary resources to maintain self-control, thus

increasing the likelihood of deviant behavior.

Therefore, we argue that an individuals’ ability to conserve their resources from the

draining effect of the situational work environment (expressed through a reduction in emotional

exhaustion) as well as the ability to capitalize on resources (expressed through an increase in

trust in the supervisor) act as mediating mechanisms between CSE and workplace deviance.

Specifically, lower CSE represents a lesser reserve of, and ability to extract, resources from the

situational environment, and thus, a higher propensity to suffer emotional exhaustion. This in

turn suggests that employees are less able to control negative impulses and desires, which may

manifest itself as workplace deviance. Conversely, higher CSE represents not only a greater

reserve of self-resources but also an increased ability to develop social resources, which may

manifest itself in the establishment of trust-based relationships with meaningful others (i.e.

supervisors). Further, heightened CSE may represent a greater propensity to capitalize on these

social resources, resulting in lower workplace deviance.

Following this line of reasoning, it may also be important to consider the motivational

mechanisms that drive deviant behavior. For example, retaliatory based explanations have

suggested that employees actively seek (i.e. a cognitive process) to direct deviant behavior

towards a specific target (Halbesleben, 2006) in order to restore some form of equity (or

fairness). However, we argue that from a self-control impairment perspective, employees whose

reserve of resources are diminished to the point that they are unable to restrain negative

impulses, will not target their deviant behavior (as such), but rather will lash out, motivated by

base instincts. As such, an inability to self-control behavior suggests that workplace deviance

may be a more subconscious and reactive in nature. Therefore, when we consider that the extant


literature suggests that workplace deviance can be categorically sub-divided according to the

intended target of the behavior (between interpersonal targeted deviance, and organizational

targeted deviance - Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Berry et al.,

2007), we argue that deviant behavior will not be targeted as such (either towards other

individuals, or the organization), but rather, other individuals, the organization, or both, may be

subject to deviant behavior, as and when an employee is unable to restrain negative impulses.

Hypothesis 3: Emotional exhaustion mediates the negative relationship between CSE and

(a) interpersonal, and (b) organizational, workplace deviance

Hypothesis 4: Trust in the supervisor mediates the negative relationship between CSE and

(a) interpersonal, and (b) organizational, workplace deviance

2. Method

2. 1 Sample and Procedure

Our research team invited several organizations to participate in the current study. Thirty-

five organizations agreed to participate allowing us to disseminate surveys to their employees

and corresponding supervisors. These were from a variety of sectors, including the travel and

food industry (16 organizations), banking (3), sports outlets (3), construction (3), consultancy

agencies (2), education (2) energy (2), telecommunications, health care, decoration and organic

products. These contacts were done at different levels (e.g., CEOs, top management, HR

managers). We first asked employees if they were willing to participate, and if they agreed we

then asked their supervisor to answer a survey concerning that employee. In total, we invited 672

employees to participate, and of these, 67 declined to participate in the study or did not return the

survey. Subsequently, we contacted the supervisors of those employees that had agreed to

participate in the study, and of these, 42 refused to participate in the study or did not return the


survey. Our response rate for dyads (i.e., both the employee and the supervisor agreed to

participate) was 84%. After removing 45 dyads due to miscompletion, our final sample was

comprised of 518 employee-supervisor dyads.

The subordinates were on average 34.8 years old, and 51% were female. Their average

tenure in the organization was 7.7 years, while the average tenure with the supervisor was 3.4

years. Employee’s education level was 16% less than high school, 38% high school diploma, and

46% university degree. Supervisors were on average 39.5 years old, and 42% were female. Their

average tenure in the organization was 9.9 years. Supervisor’s education level was 3% less than

high school, 19% high school diploma, and 78% university degree.

2.2 Measures

For all the scales, except emotional exhaustion and organizational size, we used a 5-point

Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Control variables. Organizational size is significantly related to several employee

attitudes and behaviors (Neves, 2012; Pierce and Gardner, 2004; Su, Baird and Blair, 2009), and

therefore should be accounted for when samples are derived from multiple organizations varying

in size. We classified the participating organizations into five categories: 1 = less than 10

employees; 2 = between 10 and 100 employees; 3 = between 100 and 500 employees; 4 =

between 500 and 1,000 employees; 5 = more than 1,000 employees. We also examined the

influence of demographic variables (employees’ organizational tenure, age, gender and

education) in our model. Becker (2005) recommends that researchers should beware of impotent

control variables (i.e., those not significantly related to the outcome variables), as they reduce

statistical power. As a result of the examination of the correlations between the control variables

and our study’s outcomes, we included organizational size and employees’ age and education in


our analyses. Additionally, and given that our organizations came from different sectors, we also

assessed if there were any differences between them. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests

showed that there were significant differences for CSE (t = 1.95, p< .05), trust in the supervisor

(t = 5.63, p< .01), emotional exhaustion (t = 5.93, p< .01), interpersonal deviance (t = 3.23, p<

.01), and organizational deviance (t = 3.25, p< .01). Post-hoc analyses using the Bonferroni test

showed that these differences were concentrated in specific sectors: sports outlets presented

higher trust in the supervisor than four other sectors (consultancy agencies, banking, energy and

decoration) and higher emotional exhaustion than five sectors (travel and food, banking,

education, energy and decoration); decoration presented lower emotional exhaustion than seven

sectors (travel and food, consultancy agencies, banking, sports outlets, telecommunications,

health care and construction) and higher interpersonal deviance than three sectors (banking,

telecommunications and energy); restauration presented lower trust in the supervisor than

consultancy agencies, banking, energy and decoration, and higher organizational deviance than

telecommunications and health care; and telecommunications presented lower interpersonal

deviance than travel and food and decoration. Given the differences found, we also included four

dummy coded variables in our model representing each of the sectors in which significant

differences appeared. No significant differences were found in the post-hoc analysis for CSE,

which seems to suggest that our sub- samples are similar at the individual differences level.

CSE. We measured CSE with the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) developed by

Judge et al. (2003). The scale has 12 items and is composed of four specific core traits: self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. Sample items include “I am

confident I get the success I deserve in life” (self-esteem), “Sometimes when I fail I feel


worthless” (R) (neuroticism), I determine what will happen in my life. (locus of control), and “I

am filled with doubts about my competence” (R) (self-efficacy). Cronbach’s alpha was .73.

Emotional exhaustion. To measure emotional exhaustion we used Schaufeli, Leiter,

Maslach and Jackson’s (1996) emotional exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory

– General Survey (MBI-GS). The original scale is comprised of 5 items, such as “I feel

emotionally drained by my work” and “I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to face

another day on the job”. The emotional exhaustion scale ranged from 1 = Never to 5 = Very

often. Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

Trust in the supervisor. To measure trust in the supervisor, we used 6 items from

McAllister’s (1995) interpersonal trust scale. Sample items include “We have a sharing

relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes” and “I can rely on my

supervisor not to make my job more difficult by careless work”. Cronbach’s alpha was .78.

Deviance. To measure deviance, we asked supervisors to rate their employees using 10

items adapted from Aquino et al. (1999) and Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) scales. The measure

included 5 items describing organizational deviance (e.g., “This employee intentionally arrives

late for work” and “This employee covers up his/hers mistakes”) and 5 items describing

interpersonal deviance directed at co-workers (e.g., “This employee competes with his/hers

coworkers in an unproductive way” and “This employee gossips about his/hers coworkers”).

Cronbach’s alphas were .76 for organizational deviance and .77 for interpersonal deviance.

3. Results

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and the zero-order correlations for all

variables are presented in Table 1. Reliabilities for all scales were acceptable, ranging from .73

to .82. A brief review of the correlation matrix indicated that CSE was significantly related to all


the variables in our model, except interpersonal deviance. Organizational size was positively

related to trust in the supervisor and negatively to organizational deviance, while age was

positively related to trust in the supervisor and education was positively related to CSE and trust

in the supervisor and negatively related to interpersonal deviance.

Given that supervisors rated on average between 3 and 4 subordinates, our observations

are not independent and it is possible that there are potential differences between teams. Thus,

we used the pooled within covariance matrix (i.e., controlling for the variance within supervisor)

to test our hypotheses, instead of using the raw data, since the pooled within covariance matrix is

an unbiased estimate of the population within groups covariance matrix (Cohen, Cohen, West &

Aiken, 2003) and has been previously used in organizational research (e.g., Liu, Borg & Spector,

2004; Neves & Caetano, 2009).

To assess the distinctiveness of the five constructs, we first conducted confirmatory

factor analyses (CFA). Specifically, we compared our five-factor model with three additional

models: A four-factor model where we combined organizational and interpersonal deviance, as

these may be considered sub-types of deviance, thus being part of the same construct; a two-

factor model, where we separated all the items collected from employees (i.e., CSE, emotional

exhaustion and trust in the supervisor) from those reported by the supervisors (i.e., organizational

and interpersonal deviance); and a one-factor model where all items loaded into a single factor.

Because CSE comprises four sub-dimensions (self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control

and neuroticism), we followed the advice of Bagozzi and Edwards (1998) and aggregated the

items within each facet, using the resulting four composites as indicators of CSE. This strategy is

particularly useful when the measurement scale has multiple subscales and facets sharing

sufficient common variance, as is the case for the sub-dimensions of CSE. Hall, Snell and Foust


(1999) found that combining items that share an unmodeled secondary influence (as is the case

of sub-dimensions of a given construct) into the same parcel enhances the accuracy of parameter

estimates. The Lagrange multiplier test (Bentler, 1995) recommended estimating three residual

correlations in our models: between the self-esteem and self-efficacy dimensions of the CSE

scale, two items of the emotional exhaustion scale, and two items from the trust in the supervisor

scale.

Chi-square difference tests (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; James, Mulaik and Brett, 1982)

revealed that the more constrained models presented a significantly better fit, when compared to

least constrained models (Table 2). Overall, the five-factor model presented the best fit (χ2(262)

= 697.31, p < .01; GFI = .91; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05). Factor loadings were all

acceptable, ranging between .45 and .74 for CSE, .62 and .71 for emotional exhaustion, .49 and

.64 for trust in the supervisor, .45 and .67 for organizational deviance and .45 and .76 for

interpersonal deviance.

Tests of hypotheses

To test our hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling (SEM). First, we ran a full-

mediation model, where CSE was indirectly related to deviance, through the two hypothesized

mediators: emotional exhaustion and trust in the supervisor. This model presented an acceptable

fit (χ2(432) = 765.72, p < .01; CFI = .92; GFI = .92; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04). We then

compared the full mediation model with two partial mediation models, one adding a direct path

between CSE and interpersonal deviance (χ2(431) = 763.79, p < .01; Δχ

2(1)

= 1.82; CFI = .92;

GFI = .92; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04), and the other adding a direct path between CSE and

organizational deviance (χ2(431) = 759.47, p < .01; Δχ

2(1)

= 6.25, p < .05; CFI = .92; GFI = .92;

RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04). The partial mediation model that included a path between CSE


and organizational deviance accounted for a significant improvement in statistical fit. Thus, our

results refer to the partial mediation model, depicted in Figure 1.

CSE was negatively related to emotional exhaustion (β = -.59, p < .01) and positively

related to trust in the supervisor (β = .50, p < .01), as predicted in hypotheses 1 and 2. In turn,

emotional exhaustion was significantly related to both interpersonal (β = .18, p < .01) and

organizational deviance (β = .25, p < .01). Conversely, trust in the supervisor was significantly

related to organizational deviance (β = -.26, p < .01), but not to interpersonal deviance (β = -.07,

p > .05). Since one of the conditions for mediation was not met (i.e., the link between trust in the

supervisor and interpersonal deviance), we did not find support for hypothesis 4(a). CSE also

presented a significant direct relationship with organizational deviance (β = -.19, p < .05).

To test the overall indirect effects, we conducted z-prime tests (MacKinnon, Lockwood,

Hoffman, West and Sheets, 2002), derived from the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982). This method to test

mediations provides superior power and a lower Type 1 error rate when compared to other

methods (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The negative indirect effects of CSE on interpersonal and

organizational deviance through a decrease in emotional exhaustion were significant (z’ = -2.53,

p < .05; and z’ = -3.11, p < .05, respectively), thus supporting hypotheses 3(a) and 3(b).

Moreover, the negative indirect effect of CSE on organizational deviance through an increase in

trust in the supervisor was significant (z’ = -3.15, p < .05), supporting hypothesis 4(b).

4. Discussion

The aim of our research was to examine the relationship between employees’ CSE and

deviant behavior; further, by utilizing a conservation of resources framework, we argued that this

relationship is mediated by the degree to which employees develop trust in their supervisor,

versus the extent to which they experience emotional exhaustion. In doing so, we proposed and


tested a person-environment model, with the aim to extend theoretical and empirical

understanding of the antecedents and mechanisms that contribute to deviant behavior. Overall,

with one exception, the empirical findings supported our hypotheses. Specifically, we found that

emotional exhaustion was a significant mediator for the relationship between CSE and deviance

directed at other individuals and the organization, whilst trust in the supervisor fully mediated

the relationship between CSE and deviance directed at the organization.

4.1 Theoretical Implications

Workplace deviance remains a popular area of interest within the organizational behavior

and related literatures, yet surprisingly, explanations for why employees may (or may not)

engage in deviance have been predominately limited to assumptions that it results from a desire

to seek some form of revenge (e.g. Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), or that certain employees may

possess certain personality traits that make them more (or less) likely to engage in such behavior

(Judge et al., 2006). Our findings add weight to the emerging alternative explanation that deviant

behavior may result from a critical depletion of emotional resources, resulting in an inability to

self-regulate behavior (e.g. Thau and Mitchell, 2010). However, our findings go further to

suggest that the individual trait of CSE predicts the degree to which employees are likely to

experience depletion of emotional resources and are able to obtain resources from the social

environment, and thus engage in deviance.

We argue that this research provides a number of theoretical contributions. Firstly,

research concerning CSE has traditionally focused on positive outcomes such as job

performance, satisfaction, engagement, motivation, among others. However, our theorizing and

empirical findings suggest that employees’ CSE may also help us understand why employees

may (or may not) engage in more negative attitudes and behaviors. Secondly, an initial


consideration of CSE theory suggests the importance of ‘worth’ in the evaluation of the self

(Judge et al., 1998), and as such, may arguably suggest that employees with higher CSE will be

less inclined to engage in ‘unworthy’ behavior (i.e. deviance). This reasoning essentially points

to CSE as a direct predictor of deviance, and therefore supporting an argument that individual

traits directly correspond to a predisposition to engage in deviance. However, by utilizing a

conservation of resources framework, we took a different approach, suggesting that CSE not

only relates to the level that an individual possesses innate resources (reflected in reduced

emotional exhaustion), but also relates to an individual’s ability to develop and capitalize on

resources sourced from the external situational environment (by establishing trust-based

relationships with their supervisor). Thus, our model provides a combined person and situational

account for deviant behavior, and as such, our findings lend support to the relatively small

amount of literature that points to the need to consider both individual factors and the situational

environment when considering why employees engage in deviance.

Thirdly, the extant literature is also implicit that CSE is based not just on the experience

of past successes or failures but also on the belief that the individual will be able to achieve

future outcomes that they desire and are important for them. We propose that trust in the

supervisor may be crucial in facilitating confidence in achieving these outcomes given the key

role they play in employees overall experience of work (Liden et al., 1997); in that they not only

monitor work and assign tasks, but more importantly, they reduce uncertainty about the future by

impacting employees’ sense-making processes (Eisenberger et al., 2010) and protecting

employees against workplace stressors (Harris and Kacmar, 2005). Further, heightened CSE

suggests that employees are more able to capitalize on trust in the supervisor (Colquitt et al.,


2007) due to lower levels of neuroticism. As such, our findings suggest that CSE promotes

interpersonal trust, which in turn, reduces the willingness to engage in deviant behaviors.

Finally, we argue that a dynamic may exist whereby employees with heightened CSE are

better able to develop and extract greater ‘certainty’ from the situational environment as well

from within the self. Whereas employees with lower CSE may struggle to do so, and hence, may

doubt that they can achieve important outcomes; which in turn, may cause a threat to the self

(e.g. Higgins, 1987). This may be explained by the fact that, to a certain extent, they are

influenced by ‘experiences’ they have within the external context (Judge, 2009; Judge, Hirst, and

Simon, 2009; Wu and Griffin, 2012). We suggest that employees may be more prone to

emotional exhaustion due to the utilization of emotional resources in an attempt to contain this

threat to the self. Indeed, this reasoning may be supported by research that suggests that

individuals with heightened CSE are more likely to pursue positive outcomes, whilst conversely,

lower CSE is related to individuals who solely desire to avert negative outcomes and states

(Judge et al., 2005).

4.2 Practical Implications

We also believe the present study carries implications for practice. First, it draws

attention to the relevance of CSE as a predictor of self-regulatory skill, which in turn predicts

employee deviance. Managers may wish to gain a greater understanding of their subordinates’

levels of CSE, in order to identify the potential risk of deviant behavior. With regard to what

impact managers (or managerial practices) may have on employees’ CSE, Judge (2009) recently

suggested that CSE may also be influenced by experiences within the immediate social

environment, which brings into question the assumption that CSE is mainly a broadly consistent

and stable trait (c.f. Judge et al., 1998). Thus, we believe two aspects deserve attention. Firstly,


selection processes may wish to take into account candidates’ CSE, as proposed by Judge et al.

(1998, 2003), as it impacts their ability to self-regulate behavior, and thus, the degree to which

they may engage in deviant behaviors. Secondly, given that CSE should present short- and long-

term variability due to its ties to the environment (Judge, 2009), managers may wish to invest in

work environments and structures that may facilitate the development of the core facets of CSE;

for example, greater role autonomy and a reduction in hierarchy and bureaucracy may encourage

greater internal locus of control and self-efficacy, whilst praise and recognition for work well

done could enhance self-esteem, and the greater the degree of fairness of processes and the

allocation of resources may help reduce neuroticism. While these hypotheses still have to be

tested, such an approach is also supported by evidence concerning a) how personality changes

across the life span, with unique patterns of development at all stages of life as a result of

specific life experiences (Roberts & Mroezek, 2008); and b) the interplay of personality and the

environment in the development of person-environment fit, i.e., the compatibility between an

individual and his/her work environment based on a good match between their characteristics

(Kristoff-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005).

Moreover, it also calls attention to the importance of the supervisor in providing socio-

emotional resources, (through the establishment of trust-based relationships), as a key

counterbalance to the emotionally draining effect work (and specifically uncertainty) may

inevitably have on employees. Thus, organizations should also endeavor efforts in order to

develop a cooperative climate in which trust-based relationships between supervisors and their

subordinates are fostered. Such a climate of trust can be promoted in other ways, beyond the

development of CSE: by creating a psychologically safe environment where individuals feel they

can take risks (e.g., speak up) without fear of embarrassment, rejection or punishment


(Edmondson, 1999) or by fostering high-quality relationships (i.e., LMX) between supervisors

and their teams (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang & Shore, 2012). Also, given that trust is hard to

build but can be easily destroyed, managers should also consider how to respond to trust

violations, as responses such as reticence (i.e., will not confirm or disconfirm the veracity of an

allegation) seem to be a suboptimal approach when compared, for example, with an apology

following a competence-based trust violation (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper & Dirks, 2007).

4.3 Limitations and Future Research

Theoretically, whilst we focused on trust in the supervisor as mediator between CSE and

an individual’s ability to develop and capitalize on emotional resources (and thus the ability to

self-regulate behavior), it could also be argued, for example, that an employee’s perceptions of

organizational support (POS - Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa, 1986) or

perceptions of the quality of the LMX (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997), may also

capture emotional resources that the employee may be able to acquire from the situational

environment. However we chose to focus on trust in the supervisor due to its specific concern for

future outcomes that the employee may or may not be able to achieve (i.e., willingness to put

oneself in a position of vulnerability: Mayer et al., 1995). We reasoned that core to CSE is the

belief that the individual can achieve desired outcomes, and that further, the supervisor was a key

influence in this process. Whilst POS and LMX may implicitly refer to the organization’s or

supervisor’s future positive treatment of the employee, they suggest that this future treatment

(i.e. a resource) is at the discretion of either the organization, or the supervisor. We argue that

trust in the supervisor essentially affects the degree to which the employee has confidence in

their own agency in achieving desired outcomes, and thus provides a more accurate frame-of-

reference when considering the influence of CSE on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.


Although we argue that the individual’s interpretation of the context is (at least partly)

due to individual differences, in our case CSE, it is also plausible that it is the interaction

between individual and situation that determines behavioral outcomes. To rule out this

alternative explanation we conducted additional analyses, where we tested the interaction effect

of CSE and both emotional exhaustion and trust in the supervisor on deviant behaviors (directed

at the organization and coworkers). The interaction between CSE and emotional exhaustion was

not significant for either interpersonal (B = .07, p > .05) or organizational deviance (B = .04, p >

.05). Similar results were found for the interaction between CSE and trust in the supervisor

(interpersonal deviance: B = .09, p > .05; organizational deviance: B = .16, p > .05). These

results suggest that the mediation model has a better fit to our data than the interaction model.

From an empirical perspective, the cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow us to

make inferences of causality, and therefore our results should be interpreted with caution.

Although our findings are grounded in a strong theoretical background, it is also possible to

argue that both CSE and resources (which are inextricably linked to the wider situational

environment) have a bi-directional influence on each other, as recently raised by Judge (2009)

and Wu and Griffin (2012). Future research may look to account for this, for example, through

using longitudinal or cross-lagged panel designs. Finally, our study only took into account two

variables at the organizational level that might influence the relationship between CSE and

employee attitudes and behaviors: organizational size and sector. However, other organizational-

level variables might intervene in the process by shaping the context in which relationships

occur, such as the age of the organization, geographical location or hierarchical structure, and

therefore should be examined in future research.

5. Conclusion


We believe our study provides a number of important contributions as to why employees

may, or may not, engage in deviant behavior. Whilst the majority of workplace deviance

research has focused on either the situational environment, or, individual traits, in order to

explain the cause of deviant behavior; our findings support the argument that examining both

(i.e. taking a person-environment perspective) may more accurately account for the cause of such

behavior. Specifically, our findings suggest that CSE has an important influence in determining

levels of workplace deviance. However, as opposed to there being a direct pathway between

heightened CSE and lower deviance, this relationship is mediated by the situational environment,

such that employees are able to attain and maintain sufficient emotional resources. A critical

depletion of resources may result in emotional exhaustion, which in turn may affect employees’

ability to self-regulate behavior. Our findings further suggest that heightened CSE may be key to

facilitating enhanced social exchange relationships, which in turn, may provide emotional

resources that aid self-regulation, and thus, reduce deviant behavior.


References

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 267-299). Academic Press.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and

employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20(7), 1073-1091.

Ashford, S.J. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating

information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), 370-398.

Ashford, S.J. (1986). Feedback-Seeking in Individual Adaptation: A Resource Perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465-487.

Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of

the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67-79.

Bagozzi, R.P., & Edwards, J.R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M.C. (2005). Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job

Demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180.

Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Ego Depletion and Self-Control Failure: An Energy Model of the Self’s

Executive Function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129-136.

Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The self. In DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, and G Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook

of social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed) (pp. 680-740). New York, NY, US: McGraw-

Hill.


Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: is the

active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-

65.

Baumeister, R.F., & Boden, J.M. (1998). Aggression and the self: High self-esteem, low self-

control, and ego threat. In R.G. Geen and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression:

Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 111-137). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response to

workplace incivility: A diary study. Work & Stress, 28, 124-142.

Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., & Tice, D.M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.

Becker, T. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational

research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods,

8, 274-289.

Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate

Software.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of

covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational

deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(2), 410-424.


Best, R.G., Stapleton, L.M., & Downey, R.G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job burnout: the

test of alternative models. Journal of occupational health psychology, 10(4), 441-51.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York J Wiley Sons. Wiley.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., & Tang, R.L. (2008). When employees strike back: investigating

mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance.


Carmeli, A. (2007) Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure in

organizations. Long Range Planning, 40, 30-44.

Chang, C.H., Ferris, D.L., Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C., & Tan, J. (2012). Core Self Evaluations:

A Review and Evaluation of the Literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81-128.

Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.; & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation

Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd

edition) (pp. 540-541). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Colbert, A.E., & Witt, L.A. (2009). The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the

expression of conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 790-796.

Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L.A., & Barrick, M.R. (2004). Interactive effects

of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599-609.

Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A

meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.


Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M, & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of

social exchange. In J.A.M. Coyle-Shapiro, L.M. Shore, and M.S. Taylor (Eds.), The


employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 5-28).

Oxford University Press.

Crawford, E.R., Lepine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to

employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-48.

Christian, M.S., & Ellis, A.P. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on workplace

deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 913-934.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., & Byrne, Z.S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to

work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of


Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.

Dirks, K.T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball.


Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications

for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.

Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the

prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547-559.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.


Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.

Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.E., Steiger-Mueller, M.,

& Gonzalez-Morales, G. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational

commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of


Erez, A., & Judge, T.A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation,

and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1270-1279.

Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., & Dirks, K.T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The

effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-

and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893-908.

Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L.M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to

deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(5), 1345-1353.

Ferris, D.L., Rosen, C.R., Johnson, R.E., Brown, D.J., Risavy, S.D., & Heller, D. (2011).

Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an

approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 137-161.

Foa, E.B., & Foa, G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K.J.

Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, and R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and

research (pp. 77-94). Plenem Press.

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2009). The Core Self-Evaluation Scale: Further construct

validation evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 291-304.


Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American

Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

Gorgievski, M.J., & Hobfoll, S.E. (2008). Work can burn us out and fire us up, Conservation of

resources in burnout and engagement. In J.R.B. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and

burnout in health care (pp. 7-22). Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishers.

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219– 247

Grant A.M., & Sonnentag S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact

compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 111, 13–22.

Grant, A.M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won’t let you down... or will I? Core self-

evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 108-21.

Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,

subordinates and supervisors: the roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace

factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 897-913.

Hagger, M.S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. (2010). Ego depletion and the

strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495- 525.

Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: a meta-analytic test of the

conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134-45.

Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Bowler, W.M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the

mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106.


Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Buckley, M.R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of

Management, 30(6), 859-879.

Hall, R.J., Snell, A.F., & Foust, M.S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the

subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2,

233-256.

Harris, K.J., & Kacmar, K.M. (2005). Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the

perceptions of politics-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 78(3), 337-354.

Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupré, K.E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.M.,

& Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of


Higgins, E. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,

94(3), 319-340.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General

Psychology, 6, 307–324.

Hobfoll, S.E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to

burnout. In Wilmar B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:

Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 115-133). Philadelphia, PA, US: Taylor

and Francis.

Hogg, M.A. (2001). Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty resolution: Cognitive and

motivational facets of social identity and group membership. In J.P. Forgas, K.D.


Williams, and L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of

interpersonal behavior (pp. 323-249). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-

606.

James, L.R., Mulaik, S.S., & Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and

data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Johnson, E.C., Kristof-Brown, A.L., van Vianen, A.E.M., DePater, I.E., & Klein, M.R. (2004).

Expatriate social ties: Personality antecedents and consequences for adjustment.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 277–288.

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. 2008. Getting to the core of core self-evaluations: A

review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 391-413.

Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A

core evaluations approach. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research In Organizational Behavior (Vol.

19) (pp. 151-188). Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. Greenwich,

Conn. and London: JAI Press.

Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and

life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34.

Judge, T.A. (2009). Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 18(1), 58-62.

Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits--self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability--with job satisfaction

and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.


Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Erez, A., & Locke, E.A. (2005). Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life

Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(2), 257-268.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2003). the Core Self-Evaluations Scale:

Development of a Measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the

narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership,

and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-76.

Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test

of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126-38.

Judge, T.A., Van Vianen, A.E.M.., & De Pater, I.E. (2004). Emotional Stability, Core Self-

Evaluations, and Job Outcomes: A Review of the Evidence and an Agenda for Future

Research. Human Performance, 17(3), 325-346.

Kacmar, K.M., Collins, B.J., Harris, K.J., & Judge, T.A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job

performance: the role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(6), 1572-80.

Kahill, S. (1988). Symptoms of professional burnout: A review of the empirical evidence.

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 29(3), 284-297.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., & Scott, B.A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in

the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177-95.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’

fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-

supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.


Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133.

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., & Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past

and potential for the future. In G.R. Ferris and K.M. Rowland (Eds.) Research in personnel

and human resources management (Vol 15) (pp. 47-119). JAI Press.

Lind, E.A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of

uncertainty management. In B.M. Staw and R.M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp.

181-223). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Liu, C., Borg, I., & Spector, P.E. (2004). Measurement equivalence of the German job

satisfaction survey used in a multinational organization: Implications of Schwartz’s culture

model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1070-1082.

Luria, G.I.L., & Torjman, A. (2009). Resources and coping with stressful events. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 685-707.

McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.H., & Sheets, V. (2002). A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal

stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.


Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,

52, 397-422.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Mitchell, M.S., & Ambrose, M.L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the

moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),

1159-1168.

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of Personality Traits and

Counterproductive Work Behaviors: the Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 59(3), 591-622.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:

Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.

Neves, P. (2012). Organizational cynicism: Spillover effects on supervisors and performance.

The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 965-976.

Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2009). Commitment to change: Contributions to trust in the supervisor

and work outcomes. Group & Organizational Management, 34, 623-644.

Packer, E. (1985). Understanding the subconscious (I). The Objectivist Forum, 6, 1-10.

Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M., & Atwater, L. (2010). The downside of goal-focused

leadership: the role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95(6), 1145-53.

Pierce, J.L., & Gardner, D.G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A

review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–

622.


Rey, L., Extremera, N., Pelaez-Fernandez, M.A. (2015). Linking social support to psychological

distress in the unemployed: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Social Indicators

Research, published online first. DOI 10.1007/s11205-015-0958-x

Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., & Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on

job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.

Roberts, B.W., & Mroezek, D. (2008). Personality trust change in adulthood. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 17, 31-35.

Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A

Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.

Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations,

and its causes. In R.J. Lewicki and R.J. Bies (Eds.) Research on negotiation in

organizations (Vol. 6) (pp. 3-27). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J.H., Ang, S., & Shore, L.M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX)

and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97, 1097-1130.

Rosen, C.C., Harris, K.J., & Kacmar, K.M. (2011). LMX, context perceptions, and performance:

An uncertainty Management Perspective. Journal of Management, 37, 819-838.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Salvaggio, A.N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L.H., Mayer, D.M., Ramesh, A., & Lyon, J.S. (2007).

Manager personality, manager service quality orientation, and service climate: Test of a

model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1741-1750.

http://psycnet.apa.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&id=BC949160-B5A9-320B-226B-FC6207651654&resultID=2&page=1&dbTab=pa&search=true

http://psycnet.apa.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&id=BC949160-B5A9-320B-226B-FC6207651654&resultID=2&page=1&dbTab=pa&search=true


Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1996). MBI–General Survey. In C.

Maslach, S.E. Jackson, and M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd

ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Schmeichel, B.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (2004). Self-regulatory strength. In R.F. Baumeister and

K.D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp.

84-98). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Sheldon, K.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing

autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546-557.

Sheldon, K.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-

being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3),

482-497.

Shore, L.M., & Shore, T.H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice,

in R.S. Cropanzano and K.M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support:

Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 100-108). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship

between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 100-108.

Skarlicki, D.P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3),434-443.

Skarlicki, D.P., Van Jaarsveld, D.D., & Walker, D.D. (2008). Getting even for customer

mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal

injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335-1347.


Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation

models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC:

American Sociological Association.

Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A., Judge, T.A., & Adams, J.W. (2010). Core self- evaluations as causes

of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 77(2), 255-265.

Su, S., Baird, K., & Blair, B. (2009). Employee organizational commitment: The influence of

cultural and organizational factors in the Australian manufacturing industry. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2494-2516.

Tangirala, S., & Alge, B. (2006). Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test

of uncertainty management theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 100(1), 1-20.

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43(2), 178-190.

Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and

Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.

Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., & Shaw, J.D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship

between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86(5), 974-983.

Thau, S., Bennett, R., Mitchell, M., & Marrs, M. (2009). How management style moderates the

relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty

management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

108(1), 79-92.


Thau, S., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing

explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through

perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009- 31.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P.M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: the

relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of


van den Bos, K., & Lind, E.A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments.

Psychology, 34, 1-60.

van Doorn, R., & Hulsheger, U.R. (2015). Positive self-evaluation moderates the relationship

between job demands and strain reactions. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 24, 76-87.

Vohs, K.D., & Ciarocco, N. (2004). Interpersonal functioning requires self-regulation. In R.F.

Baumeister and K.D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and

applications (pp. 392-410). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee

sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of

Management Journal, 54(2), 312-334.

Wilk, S.L., & Moynihan, L.M. (2005). Display rule “regulators”: the relationship between

supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 917-

27.

Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance

and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486-93.


Wu, C., & Griffin, M.A. (2012). Longitudinal relationships between core self-evaluations and

job satisfaction. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 331-342.


Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations and Cronbach’s alphasª b

Meanª S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. CSE 3.90 .51 (.73)

2. Emotional exhaustion 2.48 .77 -.42** (.82)

3. Trust in the supervisor 3.86 .71 .41** -.35** (.78)

4. Interpersonal deviance 1.37 .56 -.14** .16** -.18** (.76)

5. Organizational deviance 1.61 .71 -.06 .15** -.17** .56** (.77)

6. Organizational size 3.49 1.25 -.01 .01 .15** -.09* -.05

7. Age 34.81 10.40 -.06 -.09 .12** -.02 .01 .26**

8. Education 3.39 .91 .11* .07 .12** -.09* -.06 .43** -.04

9. Telecommunication sector c

--- --- .00 .04 .05 -.13** -.12** .35** -.05 .20**

10. Sport stores sector c --- --- -.05 .18** -.14** .04 .08 .13** -.21** -.02 -.07

11. Restaurant sector c --- --- -.06 .01 -.20** .11* .16** -.64** -.40** -.41** -.15** -.13**

12. Decoration sector c --- --- .06 -.20** .08 .16** .01 -.10* .11** -.20** -.07 -.07 -.13**

Note. ** p< .01; * p< .05; CSE – Core Self-Evaluation; Organizational size was coded: 1= less than 10 employees, 2= between 10 and 100 employees, 3=

between 100 and 500 employees, 4= between 500 and 1.000 employees, 5= more than 1.000 employees; Education was coded: 1 = 4th

grade; 2 = 9th

grade; 3 =

12th

grade; 4 = Bachelor degree; 5 = Post-graduation.

ª. 5-point scales; b. Cronbach’s alpha is reported on the diagonal;

c Dummy coded variables where the respective sector was coded as 1 and all other sectors as 0.


Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices

Models χ2 df Δχ

2 CFI GFI RMSEA SRMR

5 factors 697.31** 262 .91 .88 .06 .05

4 factors a 835.87** 266 156.56* .89 .84 .06 .06

2 factors b 1272.85** 271 436.98* .82 .72 .09 .08

1 factor 2138.37** 272 865.52* .67 .47 .12 .12

* p < .05; ** p < .01

Note. CFI= comparative fit index; GFI = Goodness-of-fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;

RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

a Equating organizational and interpersonal deviance

b Equating organizational and interpersonal deviance; and CSE, emotional exhaustion and trust in the supervisor


Figure 1. SEM results for the partial mediation model.

Note. For ease of presentation the paths from control variables are not depicted

pedro neves, stephen champion core self-evaluations and...

Documents